I note that there are those still calling for repatriation of powers from the EU, noticeably William Hague and on Twitter, Andrew Lilico, the latter who in a discussion with someone stated that every Treaty amendment is a renegotiation of the Treaty and there's no reason such a renegotiation couldn't involve repatriation. I am a loss to know what it is about this and this that they do not understand!
Today we had a statement from David Cameron following the G20 Summit, the text of which can be found here and it is on the subject of his comments on the eurozone and the IMF that I wish to concentrate. On these two subjects, by way of a slight digression, I would refer to this post by Norman Tebbit, one in which he writes about the possibility that Greece could be 'set free'. What Cameron's statement and Tebbit's post highlight is that politicians are taking decisions based on their thinking regardless of those of their people. Cameron, during his responses to questions following his statement, said that most people in the EU want the euro to continue. Do they - and if so where is the evidence? Cameron also stated that membership of the EU and the success of the euro greatly affected our country's prosperity. This is a line he and other politicians continually hold, yet once again no evidence is given - and when they do, for instance citing trade figures, the statistics they use have been shown to be incorrect.
The question that is at the forefront of most people's minds is just how much longer do we continue to prop up a failed currency project. That there may be 'pain' involved for us should the euro 'crash and burn' is probably true, but is that pain less than the pain we may well suffer while we continue to help prop it up. The Telegraph carries an article which mentions a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research which suggests that a disorderly break-up of the euro would mean a short, sharp economic shock and probably a recession, but would be followed by a quicker return to strong economic growth.
Also in the HoC we had a statement from Theresa May on the subject of the UK Border Agency and specifically about the recent suspensions of senior people within that agency. Yvette Cooper attempted to scupper Theresa May - who incidentally I though did quite well, but that is another subject - with criticisms centred on incompetence resulting in that incompetence flooding our country with immigrants. Luckily for Yvette Cooper it was Theresa May who replied to her, because had it been me I would just have thrown two words back to her: Andrew Neather, reminding her as an aside of that old adage about people in glass houses.
That is not to say I agree with the course of action adopted by Theresa May in that I do not recall any mention of this 'trial' in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos. Jumping aboard my participatory democracy bandwagon once again, should not any new policy - especially one not mentioned in any manifesto - be put to the people? Should not details of any such policy be published and the people have the opportunity to say: Whoa, just a minute, we don't like the look of this? What this - and the decisions of Cameron in respect of our EU membership, overseas aid and a few other matters - demonstrates is that we do live under a system of elected dictatorship.
When considering the present elected dictators in the HoC it is unfortunate that most fall into the category of fools in that they know not, but know not that they know not. Close behind come those of simple mentality who know not and know that they know not - and who consequently say nowt. Even more unfortunate for we the people are those, who can be counted on the fingers of one hand, who do know and know that they know - but no-one listens to them.